"The European Commission has imposed a EUR 561 million fine on Microsoft for failing to comply with its commitments to offer users a browser choice screen enabling them to easily choose their preferred web browser. In 2009, the Commission had made these commitments legally binding on Microsoft until 2014. In today's decision, the Commission finds that Microsoft failed to roll out the browser choice screen with its Windows 7 Service Pack 1 from May 2011 until July 2012. 15 million Windows users in the EU therefore did not see the choice screen during this period. Microsoft has acknowledged that the choice screen was not displayed during that time." Burn.

"LOL, it's these f--king liberals who are constantly bitching and whining about how people can't think for themselves, so we need the government to constantly step in and do that for them, instead of letting the market sort it out."

-100, but only to cancel out darknexus

I'll grant you that government execution is often poor, but without any antitrust enforcement we'd be in a pretty sad state of affairs. It's not just about the anti-trust violations that end up in court, it's also about additional violations that would occur if they knew they could get away with it. For example, without the threat of government anti-trust regulation, microsoft could very well have insisted that manufacturing partners lock down x86 systems via UEFI secure boot and prohibit owner overrides, like they did with ARM.

The market can only work it out if the playing field is sufficiently level.

For example, without the threat of government anti-trust regulation, microsoft could very well have insisted that manufacturing partners lock down x86 systems via UEFI secure boot and prohibit owner overrides, like they did with ARM.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with UEFI secure boot. In fact, it does have its advantages, and the government has absolutely no business telling MS (or anyone else) that they can't implement it. They don't exactly try and hide it, so you either buy it with a locked bootloader, or you vote with your wallet and pass on it.

What IS wrong is the government telling consumers that they are legally not allowed to unlock their own devices if they choose to. That is the government's doing, and you guys want MORE government intervention? This idiocy never ceases to amaze me. Maybe it would be a sane argument if the government was actually competent at regulation, but as even you admitted, they're exceedingly poor at it.

"There isn't anything inherently wrong with UEFI secure boot. In fact, it does have its advantages, and the government has absolutely no business telling MS (or anyone else) that they can't implement it."

Maybe you are deliberately missing the point? Besides the government never said any such thing anyway. The fundamental problem is that monopolists can win by manipulating markets rather than by competing with merit. If microsoft were allowed to use it's market power to coerce manufacturers to lock competing software off the hardware, that would pose a significant problem to the free market.

Keep in mind that anti-trust came about because of a long string of competitive abuses & monopolization within the free market. Anti-trust was necessary to break down the barriers that corporations were deliberately placing to block competition.

If you want to repeal antitrust, that's fine if that's your opinion but we kind of already know where that gets us. Can you propose a new mechanism by which we could avoid a few monopolists & oligopolists controlling all our markets, or do you think that is an acceptable outcome?

"What IS wrong is the government telling consumers that they are legally not allowed to unlock their own devices if they choose to."

Of course I have to agree, but what logic are you using to connect DMCA with anti-trust law?